Download [incr tsdb()]

sample session | 27
`lingo/nov-98/csli/98-11-20/page' vs. `lingo/nov-98/csli/99-01-29/lkb'
PAGE
LKB
reduction
Aggregate tasks time space tasks time space tasks time space
i-wf = 1
i-wf = 0
Total
3758
2655
(s)
3.58
2.47
3437 3.26
etasks
Platform items
]
PAGE
1290 3437
LKB
1293 3249
(kb)
13043
8983
3587
2421
(s)
2.56
1.73
(kb)
5863
4054
%
4.6
8.8
(s)
(s)
11863 3249 2.32 5338 5.5
lter edges rst total tcpu
%
56.8
87.9
284
200
(s)
0.96 2.34
2.47 2.15
%
28.5
30.1
%
55.0
54.9
(s)
(kb)
28.9 55.0
tgc space
3.26 0.40 11863
2.32 0.17 4653
(generated by [incr tsdb()] at 30-jan-1999 (15:06 h) { (c) [email protected])
Figure 10: Performance comparison between lkb and page on the November 1998 version of the LinGO erg and the CSLI test suite; here, the contrastive summary (top) is
aggregated according to item grammaticality (wellformedness) as annotated in the input
data (where `i-wf = 0 ' means grammatical) to highlight the corresponding dierence in
parsing complexity; again the individual columns repeat salient properties from the individual performance proles and (in the rightmost block) indicate how they relate to each
other (the space reduction of 55%, for example, means that lkb on average requires less
than half of the memory allocated in page | a reduction of 90% would correspond to
a factor of 10, i.e. one order of magnitude); the bottom table repeats the total numbers
from the individual proles (compare to gure 6) to further illuminate the cross-platform
comparison.
(Draft of October 15, 1999)